• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A right to NOT join a union?

Do you have a right to NOT join a union

  • Total voters
    61
Of course everyone has a right not to join a union.

But your real question is does a union have the right to keep those not in the union from performing the "contracted" work?

In States that have right-to-work laws...No..they are not allowed to that unless the industry fall under the Railroad Labor Act

22 States mostly in the South and West are right-to-work States....28 States are not.

Those who favor right-to-work will point to the economic growth in these States as they attract companies seeking to pay workers less.

On the other hand would they enjoy this advantage if every State was non right-to-work State?

Take Texas for instance. High growth State....but among the highest uninsured rates, low end on per capita income, per capita wealth, few Elite Universities for it's size, students perform below the Nation in SAT/ACT scores. Workers have few rights under State law.

Be careful what you wish for.
 
Last edited:
dragondad said:
Of course everyone has a right not to join a union.

But your real question is does a union have the right to keep those not in the union from performing the "contracted" work?

In States that have right-to-work laws...No..they are not allowed to that unless the industry fall under the Railroad Labor Act

22 States mostly in the South and West are right-to-work States....28 States are not.

Those who favor right-to-work will point to the economic growth in these States as they attract companies seeking to pay workers less.

On the other hand would they enjoy this advantage if every State was non right-to-work State?
Click to expand...

Right now though the cost of living in a lot of the right to work states is less than that of the former.

Paying less doesn't always equal a lesser life style.
I think if all else were equal, I would answer yes.
 
Sweden in 85% unionized and has one of the highest standards of living in the World...above that of the USA. (who scores high with the help our huge wealth of natrural resources)

So when people tell you unions make things worth ...that's pure right wing B.S.
 
Oftencold said:
Here's a clever and apparently untried idea for you teachers: try establishing job security through value-for-pay. In other words, turn out a quality product (educated, or at least less grotesquely ignorant children,) and you can then move out of the preposterous practice of a school system run by the State, into the more rational field of private education.

Leave extortion to criminals.
Click to expand...

OK, this sounds good.
And the parents responsibility ?? Shall we just forget about that ??
Who does the child spend the most time with ? If the child has no parents ( many do not) ,are you willing to pay for the nanny expense ?
 
dragondad said:
Sweden in 85% unionized and has one of the highest standards of living in the World...above that of the USA. (who scores high with the help our huge wealth of natrural resources)

So when people tell you unions make things worth ...that's pure right wing B.S.
Click to expand...
Please reiterate.
I agree on the Sweden bit and I have no respect for the people in the right wing....
And I was a member of the United Steelworkers of America, a good union, IMO..
 
Goobieman said:
In many places, such as school systems or places of higher education, if a union is in place, employees must join it, regardless as to the preference of the employee.

Do you have a right to NOT join a union?

Why/why not?
Click to expand...

Seeing how the unions do not own the company that you are seeking employment at it is up the company owners whether or not to make joining a union a condition of your employment at their company. People who do not own the company have no business nor a right to force you to join a union.
 
dragondad said:
Of course everyone has a right not to join a union.

But your real question is does a union have the right to keep those not in the union from performing the "contracted" work?
Click to expand...

Seeing how the unions do not own the companies the answer should be no regardless of the state. Unions should have no right what so ever to dictate whether or not a non-union member can perform contracted work.
 
earthworm said:
OK, this sounds good.
And the parents responsibility ?? Shall we just forget about that ??
Who does the child spend the most time with ? If the child has no parents ( many do not) ,are you willing to pay for the nanny expense ?
Click to expand...

Thinkest thou that I would hold the parents of callow youth blameless for their bent ways?

Shame! Knowest thou though, that this in no way frees the fetters of the teacher’s own role.

Often have I seen , the poor efforts of those charged with dispensing wisdom and learning unto the young.

Verily, I say unto thee, that many have been dismissive of all save their own comfort and prestige, saying that this one should be in a special class, and that one should be medicated.

And Lo! The many voices of unionized teachers have cried unto the World, "we could but teach were the wealth of nations lavished further upon our institutions and our persons, for who could but teach a child to read with but fifteen thousand dollars per student!" And this I have found detestable in mine ears.

For thou shouldst knowest that many labor under greater burdens with far lesser wages and much less promise of reward than the public school teacher, and yet they complaineth not.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Seeing how the unions do not own the companies the answer should be no regardless of the state. Unions should have no right what so ever to dictate whether or not a non-union member can perform contracted work.
Click to expand...

I think that typically, union shops are bargained into a contract. For example there are open shops in states that are not right to work states. In this sense, an agreement to only contract union workers means that the business owners have agreed to only hire union workers. Right to work is really a restriction on the business owner because they cannot legally agree to only contract union workers. In non right to work states, unions don't have a right to dictate the terms of the contract. They just have a right to bargain for a broader set of terms in a contract.
 
earthworm said:
Please reiterate.
I agree on the Sweden bit and I have no respect for the people in the right wing....
And I was a member of the United Steelworkers of America, a good union, IMO..
Click to expand...

Well here is the sourcing on their unionization rates...I was mistaken...it's 78%

PPI: World's Most Unionized Countries: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Belgium

I believe the USA is around 13%?

And here is the link to high standard of living Countries.[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index[/ame]

...all of the these countries ranked above the USA have universal health care and higher rates of unionization.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Seeing how the unions do not own the companies the answer should be no regardless of the state. Unions should have no right what so ever to dictate whether or not a non-union member can perform contracted work.
Click to expand...

You don't need to own a company to have a legal contract with a company.

This is a deep problem with the right wing today (they claim to be for the middle class)....They want to grant "personhood" to corporations and make the claim that corporations have the same rights granted to citizens under the Constitution..

Well they don't. ......
 
Last edited:
dragondad said:
You don't need to own a company to have a legal contract with a company.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the company need to agree to that contract?

This is a deep problem with the right wing today (they claim to be for the middle class)....
Click to expand...
Private owner ship is a totally separate issue from being for the middle class

They want to grant "personhood" to corporations and make the claim that corporations have the same rights granted to citizens under the Constitution..
Click to expand...

This is about property ownership not person hood. If you do not own a company then you can not dictate hiring practices of that company. The owners of a company can write a contract out agreeing to only hire union members, but that is up to the company owners to decide that.
 
jamesrage said:
Wouldn't the company need to agree to that contract?


Private owner ship is a totally separate issue from being for the middle class



This is about property ownership not person hood. If you do not own a company then you can not dictate hiring practices of that company. The owners of a company can write a contract out agreeing to only hire union members, but that is up to the company owners to decide that.
Click to expand...

ALL these companies agreed to the contract...they come up for renewal on a regular basis! And if they don't like it after the contract expiration...they can lock the employees out and hire scabs.

And the hell we can't dictate the hiring practices of that company!

This isn't Ron Paul World. We have laws that say exactly what a Company can and cannot do in regards to their hiring practices.

And it's all perfectly legal.....If you think not.....Tell it to the Judge.
 
jamesrage said:
Wouldn't the company need to agree to that contract?


Private owner ship is a totally separate issue from being for the middle class



This is about property ownership not person hood. If you do not own a company then you can not dictate hiring practices of that company. The owners of a company can write a contract out agreeing to only hire union members, but that is up to the company owners to decide that.
Click to expand...

In union shops is is the company that writes the contract to only hire union workers. Right to work law essentially says that the company owners cannot write this type of contract. Union shops are bargained into a legal contract with a company. Personally, I don't see why a company should not be able to sign contract that creates a union shop. Given that non-members can free-ride off of the members who do pay dues and organize a union, I can see why union members would try to bargain for a union shop agreement.
 
JimboJ said:
In union shops is is the company that writes the contract to only hire union workers. Right to work law essentially says that the company owners cannot write this type of contract. Union shops are bargained into a legal contract with a company. Personally, I don't see why a company should not be able to sign contract that creates a union shop. Given that non-members can free-ride off of the members who do pay dues and organize a union, I can see why union members would try to bargain for a union shop agreement.
Click to expand...

Unions power is deeply eroded in right to work states...the effectiveness of a strike is greatly reduced because those non-union workers can keep working and not fear for their jobs....In a closed shop strike...if you continue working and the union comes back...you are out of a job.
 
dragondad said:
ALL these companies agreed to the contract...they come up for renewal on a regular basis! And if they don't like it after the contract expiration...they can lock the employees out and hire scabs.
Click to expand...

So what are we in disagreement about? The company owners are the ones allowing this not the unions.
 
dragondad said:
Sweden in 85% unionized and has one of the highest standards of living in the World...above that of the USA. (who scores high with the help our huge wealth of natrural resources)
Click to expand...

Thank you for connecting 2 things that have almost nothing to do with each other.

How about using statistics that actually can be influenced by unionization, such as employment rates and productivity?
 
dragondad said:
Sweden in 85% unionized and has one of the highest standards of living in the World...above that of the USA. (who scores high with the help our huge wealth of natrural resources)
Click to expand...

You're confusing correlation with causation, there's no indication that being in a union makes the country have a high standard of living, only that the two elements exist in the same country.

So when people tell you unions make things worth ...that's pure right wing B.S.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the pure left wing B.S. that you're spouting?
 
The 1937 Taft/Hearty act make's it a federal crime to have a closed shop or force anyone to join a union in this country.
 
There used to be a time and place for unions but those days are over. Now they are simply evil and may as well be the Mafia!
 
Cephus said:
You're confusing correlation with causation, there's no indication that being in a union makes the country have a high standard of living, only that the two elements exist in the same country.
Click to expand...

Oh did I say that being in a union makes a country have a high standard of living?

Would you mind posting my exact words in context?

Also I'm NOT implying that putting words in my mouth makes you a %^&*$.

That's only a correlation and doesn't prove causation as you know.
 
Jerry said:
Here in SD we're a "right to work" state because we recognize a person's right to earn a living is far greater than the unions right to regulate the work environment.

Personal freedom FTW :2wave:
Click to expand...

40th in per capita income...your reward.

Liberal non "right to work" Minnestoa right next door.... 13th in per capita income.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Let's keep things civil.
 
dragondad said:
40th in per capita income...your reward.

Liberal non "right to work" Minnestoa right next door.... 13th in per capita income.
Click to expand...

And Virginia, a "right to work" state, is like 7th.

Not that it matters, since once again, you are relating two things that have nothing to do with each other.
 
Cephus said:
You're confusing correlation with causation, there's no indication that being in a union makes the country have a high standard of living, only that the two elements exist in the same country.



As opposed to the pure left wing B.S. that you're spouting?
Click to expand...

At the very least the fact that high unionization rates exist in countries with the highest living standards does demonstrate that dense unionization rates are not harmful to these countries. Many on the right often argue that unions ruin a country's economy. This is simply not the case. In the current world economy, countries can have high unionization rates where workers enjoy significant protections and bargaining rights, while also having the highest standards of living in the world as measured by the HDI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom